Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

302. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (Holdridge) and the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (Malone) to Acting Secretary of State Stoessel¹

Washington, July 14, 1982

SUBJECT

• State Department Position on IWC Strategy

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED:

Whether or not to send the attached letter to Secretary of Commerce Mac Baldrige urging him to consider the foreign policy implications of certifying the Japanese as being in violation of the IWC conservation plans.

ESSENTIAL FACTORS:

The IWC with the full support of the United States, has been moving during the past several years towards a complete cessation of whaling throughout the world.²

The Congress has given its imprimatur to the whale conservation movement, which enjoys broad public support, by passage of the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson amendments to the Fisheries Act and the Conservation act.³ The first empowers the president to embargo fish imports from a country certified to be “seriously impairing the conservation program of the IWC” and the second requires the president to withhold 50 percent of the annual fish allocations from a country so certified.

Japan last year filed objections to two IWC rules touching on conservation:⁴ the first is the so-called cold harpoon question, which for humane reasons forbids the use of harpoons without exploding heads in catching Minke whales; the second is the IWC-set quota for sperm-whale kills for this year. The IWC limit will be zero (compared with 890 last year) if dispute over the scientific data is unresolved. The Japanese have notified the IWC that they intend to continue taking sperm whales since their data and the IWC model show that the less than one-half of one percent of the sperm-whale stock that the Japanese would take would not make any difference in the conservation of the species.

Assuming Japan begins whaling this fall, in the absence of any change in the IWC regulations, it will be liable to certification as a country “seriously impairing the conservation program of the IWC.”

The U.S. has consistently voted in favor of a complete cessation of whaling.⁵ Each year the entry into the IWC of more conservation minded states has improved the chances of a complete moratorium motion passing.

The threat of U.S. sanctions against non-complying nations has been useful in moving whaling nations closer to a complete ban but no whaling nation has agreed, even in principle, to a cessation for any species of whale. Thus passage of a cessation motion, even if only for Sperm Whales, will lead to the U.S. having to employ the sanctions set forth in the Packwood-Magnuson amendment.

If we were to employ Packwood-Magnuson, the Japanese would undoubtedly protest that we were being discriminatory since the effects of the amendment, though universally applicable, would harm only Japan in a significant manner.

Possible countersanctions by Japan could take the form of:

—increased reluctance to cooperate with the U.S. on joint-venture fisheries, a prime goal in our fisheries policy;

—refusal to import U.S. fish, and increased reluctance to be forthcoming on tariff and trade matters in the fish and fish products area.

The recent industry-to-industry agreement between U.S. and Japanese fishermen, which raises Japan’s purchases of U.S. caught fish in U.S.-Japan joint ventures from the current 60,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1984, increases the level of damage to the U.S. Pacific fishing industry that would result from Japan applying countersanctions to the U.S. in event of certification.⁶

A compromise which leaves Japanese whaling at lower levels than this year but something more than the current IWC regulations may be possible. In any event, should Japan turn down such a compromise, invocation of the Packwood amendment would at least appear more justifiable.

RECOMMENDATION

That you sign the attached letter to Secretary Baldrige urging that we work toward a compromise if necessary.

Attachment

Letter From Acting Secretary of State Stoessel to Secretary of Commerce Baldrige⁷

Washington, July 14, 1982

Dear Mac:

I know you are aware of the impasse we seem to have reached on the issue of whaling with the Japanese and the significant problems that certifying the Japanese will cause us in trade and other fields of foreign affairs.

On the other hand, I am also aware of the conservationist pressure and White House interest that exists for a better managed whale stock. I would hope that our government could be sensitive to these pressures and still not decide to certify any country without due regard to the trade and foreign policy questions involved.

Accordingly, I would suggest that the Departments of State and Commerce, in the context of our present position or some modified position, explore the possibility for equitable compromise.⁸

Sincerely,

Walter J. Stoessel, Jr.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P820108–1835. No classification marking. Drafted by Michalak on July 12 and cleared by Seligmann, Chapman, Schaffer, and Bernhardt. A stamped notation on the memorandum reads: “Ambassador Stoessel has seen.”
2. See Document 301.
3. The Pelly amendment was adopted in 1954 and was expanded in 1978 to provide greater protections for endangered species. The Packwood-Magnuson amendment was adopted in 1979.
4. In telegram 20187 from Tokyo, November 6, 1981, the Embassy informed the Department about Japan’s decision to object to the IWC rules regarding harpoons and sperm whale kills. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810527–0064)
5. See Document 301.
6. In telegram 163118 to Tokyo, June 14, the Department reported that representatives from the U.S. and Japanese fishing industries had met in Seattle June 7–10 and reached agreement on issues regarding joint ventures. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820309–1073)
7. No classification marking.
8. No response from Baldrige has been found.